Advertisement

Advertisement

. . . . .

By Tam Dalyell in Westminster

LATE last year, MPs thought they had achieved a voluntary ban on the testing
of finished cosmetic products on animals. However, animal rights groups say that
it is not possible to get proof from the cosmetics industry that the ban is
being respected. I asked Lord Williams of Mostyn, the Home Office minister with
responsibility for animals, whether the ban was now in place.

He replied that the government had wanted to amend the European Commission’s
Cosmetics Directive and ban the marketing of cosmetic products containing
ingredients or combinations of ingredients tested on animals after January 1998.
But because the Commission advised that there were no suitable, validated
alternatives for most of the standard animal tests, the ban was postponed until
June 2000.

Currently, very little testing is carried out on ingredients for “vanity”
products. However, the European definition of cosmetics also includes such
things as suncreams, toothpaste and wart remover.

In Britain, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 does not provide an
outright ban on animal tests, the minister said.

Advertisement

“To perform a regulated procedure on an animal, both personal and project
licences are required under the 1986 act. Since the government’s announcement
last year, no licence has been issued authorising the use of animals to test
finished cosmetic products,” said the minister.

If any reader knows of any specific cases to the contrary, they should write
with details to Lord Williams of Mostyn at the Home Office, 50 Queen Anne’s
Gate, London SW1H 9AT.

WHEN it comes to military action in the Gulf or elsewhere, Britain invariably
cooperates unhesitatingly with the US. It is a pity that Britain does not extend
the same enthusiastic cooperation to the International Space Station (ISS).
Following Charles Seife’s report that the project’s budget could require another
&dollar;5 billion to protect the ISS from space debris(This Week, 4 July, p 22),
I asked John Battle, the science minister, how the government views
this.

Battle said that the European Space Agency (ESA) is currently building two
modules for the ISS. Although Britain is a member of ESA, it is not
participating in this programme and therefore has no direct involvement in the
ISS. The government decided that the facilities that the ISS will eventually
offer could be produced in more cost-effective ways. However, Battle added that
Britain has signed the inter-governmental agreement on the ISS to keep open the
option of its scientists using the station. Once it is operational, the research
councils will evaluate any proposals to use it on the basis of scientific merit
and cost effectiveness.

The rest of the world, including Britain’s European partners, might look more
kindly on Anglo-American cooperation if it were scientific, not military.

FEW cases have stirred such public interest in the complexities of human
ethical issues as that of Diane Blood. In 1997 Blood wanted access to sperm
taken from her husband while he lay in a coma dying from bacterial meningitis.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority refused permission, on the
grounds that her husband had not provided the written consent for the use of his
sperm that is required by law. The matter went to the Court of Appeal, which
eventually issued a special direction for the sperm to be exported to Belgium,
where Blood was successfully impregnated with it.

This, together with Philip Cohen’s recent account of events leading to a bill
before the New York state legislature aimed at ensuring that only the widow or
partner of a dead man can request sperm retrieval(This Week, 21 March, p 23),
encouraged me to ask Tessa Jowell, the public health minister, for the
government’s view on such issues.

Jowell replied that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act requires
written consent from a donor before gametes can be used for treatment purposes.
This ensures that eggs or sperm are used only in accordance with a donor’s
express wishes, she added. British law does not recognise the concept whereby
one adult may give consent on behalf of another who is unable to do so due to
incapacity, except where this relates to the patient’s own health and welfare,
said the minister.

Stephen Dorrell, the previous health secretary, appointed Sheila McLean,
professor of law and ethics in medicine at the University of Glasgow, to review
these complex issues. I can think of no one better qualified to do so. Her
findings will be available within weeks.